God I would kill to trade Lonzo for Smart.
Printable View
I was thinking about 20 million a year, but I didn't take into account the things you brought up, so yea, I guess 25 million. Just to be sure, he is a restricted free agent after this year right? So we can still sit back and make another team make that much of a monetary commitment to him, and then match it?
Imagine paying 25 mil for Lonzo Ball, simultaneously lighting on fire all of the cap flexibility that you have created in the past 2 seasons and making it near impossible to trade for another star
You don't have to sign him to any crazy deal. You give him a modest deal. Let him float the market. See if it's worth matching. If he can't find better suitor... He'll probably takes the QO and demand a trade before the season start
I feel there is little to no chance he wants to stay in NOLA at anything less than overpaid.
He's a RFA not a UFA
Let’s make an assumption that Lonzo’s last week and a half play continues over the course of this year. Would you rather resign him, or make a trade for Beal. Positive: Beal gives you another scorer that can create his own shot. So presumably at all times we can have at least two efficient scorers out on the court, so hopefully we can avoid some of the scoring lulls we get into. Negative, his defense is still pretty doo doo so we go back to having to outscore all of our opponents since we ain’t going to be stopping anyone on defense. Is Beal a complete no brainer?
I think you are taking a huge gamble by keeping him long enough to find out if it continues for the entire year. At that point you're either at cough up or lose him for nothing stages. That's too late. That's why you either have to decide whether he's worth paying now or not, because if you don't make the choice soon then Father Time will make it for you.
For all we know Beal isn’t even available.
Also we could still trade for another star even giving Lonzo the money. Adams’ and Bledsoe’s salaries alone should be enough.
Not gonna happen. However, if you are frustrated with Lonzo's shot selection, how would you feel about Smart? Smart's main asset is that he appears to be a great glue guy with high energy. He also is an excellent defender. His offense may be more frustrating than Ball. His deal, signed 2 years ago, was seen as a steal for the Celtics, so that is why I am saying I would go a little bit higher.
If we give Lonzo 25 mil, that puts us right at the cap next year, without our draft picks or FAs.
Sure they have Adams and Bledsoe's money to aggregate into trades, but now in every trade situation you're working with your back against the cap. It makes it almost impossible to trade unless either the player you are trading for is making exactly 35 million (Bledsoe and Adams combined salary), or the team you are trading with has a ton of room to just take those guys into space.
If Griff does have any plans to sign Lonzo long term (I do not think he does), he'll do so only if he has sufficient flexibility to trade for a big fish. This is how he has operated since he arrived. That means he probably won't give Lonzo an offer over 17 mil per year or something along those lines.
how many draft picks would have to be attached for this to work?? (the salaries match)
Pels receive: Lauri Markanen + Denzel Valentine
Bulls receive: Lonzo Ball
Oh, I know it's not going to happen. Just saying I'd like it if it did.
I watch a lot of the Celtics, I love Smart. Ridiculous grit, incredible defender (one of the two or three best guard defenders in the NBA, up there with Jrue), underrated passer. Yeah, he sucks at scoring, but so does Lonzo: they're both inconsistent 3pt shooters, they both barely get to the rim, and they're both very mediocre career midrangers, but at least Smart can shoot FTs (career 77%, over 80% the last two seasons) and has a legitimate hardnosed mentality.
Valentine is an expiring and I don't think he breaks our rotation, so it's basically Markanen for Ball. In a vacuum it's a pretty fair swap, so picks would really depend on the outside market for both players. Seems like Lonzo has far more suitors at the moment, and Mark is hurt.
Smart does not shoot many FTs either (although Lonzo avoids them). Lonzo is a much better 3 point shooter than Smart and it is not close. We cannot get Smart, but I would like to be able to sign Lonzo at a contract similar or slightly higher than Smart. I do not think he will settle for that though, so we need to look to maximize our value in a trade.
Everybody is so preoccupied on Ball and JJ; where do we stand with Hart? I believe he will be in demand.
You say Lonzo is a *much* better 3pt shooter than Smart and that it is ''not close'' but in reality there's only about 1% difference in their efficiency from deep over the last 3 years, and even if you draw it in even closer to only the last 2 years that gap only grows to about 3%. It's not like Smart is Draymond and Lonzo is Curry, here.
So my point remains: neither are particularly great 3pt shooters, largely due to inconsistency. Smart is the better FT shooter by a pretty significant mile, although neither of them take that many. Lonzo finishes at the rim at better rate, but again, neither of them actually get there very often. Neither of them have ever hit league average TS%. To that regard, I feel like it's not unfair to say they're both pretty poor scorers.
Lonzo is going to be an all star. We have to keep him and pay him. I want the next 10 games to prove he isn?t teasing us.... we need him to help us win. I think he?s getting a big contract and he will deserve it if we get to the playoffs and he plays at another level. I?m kinda shocked by his 3 point shooting. He volume and high percentage.
This is the stat I want from Zo:
18ppg, 8rpg, 7.5apg, 1.8spg, 1bpg
Focus on defense, off the ball 3 point shooting in half court, take care of ball and make those beautiful assists.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah, no chance he becomes an all star... jrue holiday was a 1 time all star and that happened in the weaker eastern conference. The west is also guard heavy so it makes it even tougher to be one.
i think majority of us think lonzo can be a 3&d guard that can guard the 1-3 with good defense and that alone may get lonzo 20mil with the expectation of lonzo getting better at the extra stuff that he is not great/good at now......
he is getting 20mil from some team which may be overpaying in some people eyes but the teams may be also banking on lonzo over all game getting better and that may be a risk those teams are willing to take....question is are we in that same boat....
its all about the consistency with lonzo now...
When the conversation warrants it, so do I. Stats aren't difficult to find these days. But with this point you're making, it's not worth saturating an argument with numbers. It makes no sense. The games when Lonzo is the leading shot taker have nothing to do with him being forced into it. At all.
And please stop with this "petty agenda" stuff. Do the Pelicans also have a "petty agenda" by going out and signing Bledsoe, drafting Kira, and trying to change Lonzo into a 3&D off ball wing? Or did they see what we see?
I mean, I think we have to look at how the game is playing out. Is Ball shooting threes because the defense is leaving him wide open? In that case Lonzo probably shouldn't be passing those shots up, unless he's in one of his horrendous cold spells. Now if he's jacking up shots, because he's turned into Lonzo, "Superstar" then yes, that needs to be reigned in.
Hart is pretty much the same guy this season as he's been throughout his young career.
I think the Kuzma contract is a pretty good starting point for Hart. Kuz signed a 3 year 39 million dollar contract with a player option. The issue for Hart, though, is that Kuzma has: 1) shown exponentially more scoring potential than Hart, and 2) was a pivotal piece on a championship team the prior season.
Hart doesn't have nearly the leverage that Kuzma had, and he hasn't really been lighting the world on fire from 3, though he's been fine. I think the full MLE is kind of the perfect contract for Hart. He's better than guys like Moe Harkless who are getting 3-5 mil per year, but not quite on Kuzma's level in terms of production, potential, and leverage.
yes and mostly getting the pass from ingram because the defense build a wall for zion then the big go set a screen but lonzo man cheat down to stop ingram from driving then ingram pass the ball to an open lonzo for a forced late shot 3......
its context like this thats not being told when the lonzo has more shots than ingram and zion comment came up being made to be a negative against lonzo in those 2 or 3 games.....comments like lonzo has more shots than ingram and zion without context as to why he had more shots are not fair to him but are just petty lol.....
Just taking a quick look at a couple games where he led in shots. One game he was 6 - 18 and only half (9) of those shots were threes. Another game he was 6 - 15 and only 6 of those shots were threes.
So basically, in the games where he was the leading shot taker, he was just shot happy and it had nothing to do with being forced into 3s.
Which is why I said this whole argument was nonsense to begin with.
This is accurate, although Lonzo taking 9 3's a game should not happen. Bigger issue is that, on a team with much more proven efficient scorers like BI and Zion, Lonzo should never be the leading shot taker. It's been said numerous times in this thread that, at best, he is a solid 3 & D guard on this team.
Do you ever want your 3&D guy(s) leading the team in shot attempts? Lonzo's issue is he has very limited ability to create for others in the half court so he ends up chucking it more than he should.
forget the 3s.......in 2 games you are making a big deal over him leading in attempts but you are not giving the whole story as to why/how did lonzo lead in attempts.....forget the 3s.....what was zion and ingram deal in those games....did the defense leave him open to take the shots....was some of those miss put backs......what lineup was he in....ect....all im asking you and pelicandae to do is put context on the comment when yall bring in up ...yall do it any other time you come down on him......
im asking you...is it fair criticism posting lonzo had more shot attempts than ingram and zion in 2 games win or loose without context knowing that the details as to why that happen may lead to explaining why lonzo had more attempts?....how is that nonsense to know the facts?....
we all know its not by design that lonzo is suppose to lead the team in shot attempts in any game with a healthy zion and ingram playing in the same game...if you going to make those 2 games a big deal then adding context to why it happen means something...something must have happen in those 2 games to make happen......hell say lonzo came out and wanted to be the man those 2 games and just started shooting crazy....
Can't tell this without going back and re-watching the game, which you are welcome to do. What I can tell you is that the game where Lonzo was 6 - 18 (and 2 - 9 from 3) was the second OKC game. He also had 4 turnovers, compared to 4 assists. That same game Zion was 12 - 17 from the field, BI was 9 - 15, and Steven Adams posted a triple double.
So you go re-watch the game and explain to us what context required Lonzo to have the most shot attempts on the team, especially when he was flat out sucking that game and everyone else was playing well.
Still a long way to go but his play has been elite as of late. If he continues to play well the rest of the way, there's no way they're letting him walk. Trading him wouldn't net you enough to pull the trigger. It's in the organization's best interest to let him earn his contract.
Did you watch those games? I know one where he had a lot of shots and he attacked the basket more than usual and had a few misses and one or two blocked. A couple ended up in put backs. It is a silly argument to begin with. He does not take as many shots as BI or Zion, so not sure why the argument just because he may have had a couple of games where he had more.
I think the issue with this is an issue that our team has in general, rather than one with Lonzo in specific. We just tend to get very selective.
''Here's the part of the game where Lonzo shoots a lot, then after that's done we'll get Zion 5 or 6 shots, then after that's done we'll give BI a few ISO possessions, then it's Bledsoe's turn to drive'' etc. It's something that happens a lot where a game will start, for example, with Zion taking 5 shots and then he doesn't get another one for the half while everyone else gets their turn, or Ingram will start the game off 4-9 while nobody else in the starting lineup has more than 2 shots, or Lonzo will have a three minute span where he takes 6 threes and barely anyone else gets a look in. The result is that it does sometimes seem like Ball is being a shot-jacker, or that Ingram has gone ISO mode for ages, or that Zion hasn't taken a shot in 2 quarters.
It's part of what makes our offense overall this season so easy to defend. Super predictable, not nearly as ball-movement-heavy as it has been in past years.
Our best games are the games where that's different. Recently, that's coincided with giving Zion the ball more and allowing him to be playmaker as well as scorer. It's worked really well, he has huge gravity and is happy to pass, and it tends to get guys more involved.
For an example of some statistics that evidence that:
Per @nbastats, the Pelicans are 5-0 when Zion's assist ratio (assists per 100 possessions used) is at least 15%. In particular, his four highest outputs in this area were the Pelicans' most recent 4 wins:
— Mason Ginsberg (@MasonGinsberg) February 8, 2021
2/3 vs. PHX: 27.3%
1/29 vs. MIL: 26.9%
2/5 @ IND: 20.8%
2/6 vs. MEM: 19.2% https://t.co/YARjWQMqm2
Being that I'm a member of this board and an obvious Pelicans fan, that comments on each and EVERY game thread...do you think I watched those games?
There should not be ANY games where someone as limited offensively as Lonzo is, leads the team in shots. Especially in games where he shoots sub 40%. And yet there have already been multiple. He should never have to be reigned in. That speaks to the wider issue of his decision making, and to the even wider issue of do you want to pay someone like that $15+ mil when you have a Kira Lewis on the roster.
Then again, this entire thread is the result of the last 3 games and not what Lonzo has shown since he's been here. Which obviously, I have sat and watched ALL of those games...obviously. Such is the way of the short-term memory and short-term thinking of fans.
**as a matter of fact, here is what I said in the gameday thread when he did it in that bad OKC loss when he shot too much:
Quote:
Lonzo is a bad decision maker.
He charged the lane and caught OKC off guard and scored. Cool.
He comes back 2 straight possessions and tries to do it again, when OKC is ready for it. He doesn't take his time, direct traffic so he has an open lane.
Indiana cleared space for Brogdon's gw the other night. When OKC needed to score, they cleared space for Hill who got Lonzo to foul him.
Lonzo, otoh, doesn't seem to know how to direct traffic aka be a point guard. He just does things recklessly which ends up in blocked shots in a crowded paint or a turnover.
Disagree with you that we should be limiting players to a specific number of shots. That is not how team basketball is played. If he dominated the shots every game, I would agree. However, he is averaging 12 shots a game. In watching the games, it is not like he is running down the court and chucking up shots without trying to get into an offense.
Based on how Defenses neutralized both BI and Zion in the second halfs of games early on in the season, it was kind of necessary for someone outside of our stars to take shots. Unfortunately Bledsoe was really passive early on and the rest of our role players couldn't really buy a shot so that's probably part of the reason why Ball took matters in his hands. Some of it was bad decisions by Ball and some of it was because how passive both BI and Zion because when they received certain coverages.
I don't think Ball is the type to just launch shots just to launch them. It was needed at the time and no one else stepped up so he decided to be the one to. I'll be worried if there was an actual trend but that hasn't proved to be the case.
I didn't say we should be limiting players to a specific number of shots. Words are important. I said he should not be leading the team in shots. And sure enough when he has, the team has a losing record. The reasons for that are obvious and don't need repeating. I gave the example from that quote in the OKC game on what he should NOT have been doing. Nobody forced him to do that.
And if he is a proper point guard that you want to pay big money to, then teams should not be able to clamp down on BI and Zion and force Lonzo to shoot the most. Part of his job is to get those guys open by doing the things I don't need to keep repeating, since I've been saying it all year.
I'm not going to keep arguing this. This is jus the typical short memory jeckyll and hyde attitude most fans have. This thread popping up now is no surprise.
He has his flaws, no doubt. But some want to blame him for everything that goes wrong. I think some have a bias that makes it hard to give him credit when he does something well. To be clear, I do not think he is someone we should invest $20-$25 million a year in, but I do think he has a role at a reasonable salary (around the $14-$16 million dollar area).
Lonzo is an interesting player. Some days he is terrible, a few days he is great.
That tiny window of great makes people start to dream about his greatness to come.
The bubble performance makes people believe he is the worst starter in the league.
The truth lies somewhere in the middle, he is an NBA starter, but not difference maker.
The Pelicans, as small market team, CANNOT give him a big contract.
BI got his, Zion will get his, and they invested in Adams.
Any other 15 to 25 million dollar player added must be an all-star, a player other teams fear.
Investing big in Lonzo Ball now, will cripple the team in the future.
Trade him now before you handcuff the future.
It's funny; it really is. The same folks who, when defending JAXSON Hayes against the horrible start of his career, hypothesize that a player doesn't 'become the player he will eventually become' until he is 24 or 25 years old. I suppose that Ball, who like his pal from LA-LA Land (Brandon Ingram) has had up's and down's through the first three years of his career in the league, shouldn't be offered same benefit of the doubt as our 'beloved' JAXSON. They simply want Lonzo Ball gone at age 23 despite the increasing signs of brilliance he is showing.
Consider The teams Ball has played for in the NBA....
Year One: 2017-18....LAL...Luke Walton Philosophy
Year Two: 2018-19.....LAL...LeBron James Philosophy (make no mistake)
Year Three: 2019-10....NOP...Alvin Gentry Philosophy
Year Four: 2020-21....NOP...Stan Van Gundy Philosophy
Perhaps, if the teams Lonzo's played for could get theirs acts together, Ball wouldn't be re-tooling his game every 365 days.
SIDENOTE: Who amongst us doesn't see a major difference in the way the Pelican Offense is run this year as compared to last?